To modern audiences. Most middle aged people aren't very familiar with the originals.

They were taking a chance with a franchise that isn't a proven moneymaker these days. If it had done well you'd be seeing a new Lone Ranger churned out every year or two until people get sick of it.

Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them? If no one really remembers the Lone Ranger just write a new story.It's a fact. Hollywood is completely out of new ideas.

To modern audiences. Most middle aged people aren't very familiar with the originals.

They were taking a chance with a franchise that isn't a proven moneymaker these days. If it had done well you'd be seeing a new Lone Ranger churned out every year or two until people get sick of it.

Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them? If no one really remembers the Lone Ranger just write a new story.It's a fact. Hollywood is completely out of new ideas.

The entertainment industry has been out of idea since before Shakespeare's time. Even he's accused of being a thieving hack.

I saw it, and I think the only thing that really hurt it was Johnny Depp. The script was decent (overlooking that the transcontinental railroad didn't go through Texas), had a solid telling of the Ranger's origin, had a decent amount of complexity in the dealings between the settlers and the Natives (showing that many of the conflicts were caused by robber barons sending thugs dressed as Natives to commit crimes and murder), and had a good, action-packed finale. Armie Hammer (aside from the name), was good in the lead; far better than Klinton Spilsburry's emotionless hack job back in '81. The other Native characters were treated with resect and had much more realism and impact than Tonto. The huge problem was Depp as Tonto; the quirky Depp style just didn't sit right with a character that was already maligned for decades before this film. It added insult to injury. And Michael Horse's performance in the '81 film was really spectacular and gave Tonto a lot of depth and respectability. Johnny Depp was the biggest reason why the movie failed; as soon as he showed up in the trailers and production pics with that bird on his head, people gave up on the film.

And no, I'm not going off memory for the '81 film, I actually watched it again the night before I saw the new Lone Ranger. It's worth it for Jason Robards and Christopher Lloyd.

The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Slaves2Darkness:The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

for good or for awesome:Isn't the fact that people are already familiar with the characters the reason they keep digging up old shows like this to make movies out of them?

They keep dragging them up because they made money in a different time, hoping they make money again.

Older generations would still be familiar, and maybe they were banking on them influencing younger generations, or something. The cowboys and indians thing isn't a big box office draw anymore, so it had to be something like that.

RoyFokker'sGhost:The huge problem was Depp as Tonto; the quirky Depp style just didn't sit right with a character that was already maligned for decades before this film. It added insult to injury. And Michael Horse's performance in the '81 film was really spectacular and gave Tonto a lot of depth and respectability. Johnny Depp was the biggest reason why the movie failed; as soon as he showed up in the trailers and production pics with that bird on his head, people gave up on the film.

That's what did it for me. I was on the fence initially, but in the previews I didn't see Tonto, I saw Depp playing Tonto. It was a poor casting decision.

Slaves2Darkness:The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

meat0918:Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

meat0918:Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

The problem being those are actually GOOD movies. This was a steaming pile of..well, Disney.

acefox1:I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

I just read a book about what happened with John Carter. It was horribly horribly marketed, which is kinda strange given they spent $100 million on marketing but had almost no online presence and the commercials just weren't that interesting. It seems like a decent enough movie, but since the works of Burroughs has since been copied by everyone from Star Wars to Avatar, seeing the original just makes it look like a copy.

Blaming the critics is laughable. The critics thought "Grown Ups 2" was a steaming turd but that didn't stop it from making $117m to date. I'd start looking for other reasons why people didn't want to see the studio's Lone Ranger movie and try to do better next time around.

Savage Bacon:meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Not to mention

[movieboozer.com image 450x317]

Well, to be fair, that movie was 20 years ago. I don't know what the boundaries was being used for "modern age". That's a kickass movie, though.

Savage Bacon:meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

acefox1:I'm sure Disney figured that as long as they stayed away from Mars movies they'd avoid another huuuuge financial disaster.

Mars Needs Moms - $140 million dollar loss

John Carter - roughly $150-$200 million dollar loss

The Lone Ranger - another $100 to $200 million dollar loss

That's quite a tradition they have going over there.

Someone in yesterday's thread had the interesting point that the films greenlit by the guy who resigned after the flop of "John Carter" are still coming through the pipeline and will be for several more months.

Car_Ramrod:Savage Bacon: meat0918: Slaves2Darkness: The Lone Ranger is a tired concept that does not play well to audiences. Westerns are just not doing well at theaters in the modern age. Maybe they should have gone with Marshall Bravestarr, Silver Hawk, or Galaxy Rangers.

Really?

[www.digitaltrends.com image 379x241]

[www.lassothemovies.com image 414x254]

[eurweb.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com image 500x339]

Not to mention

[movieboozer.com image 450x317]

Well, to be fair, that movie was 20 years ago. I don't know what the boundaries was being used for "modern age". That's a kickass movie, though.

I thought "Maverick" was pretty fun, too.

Maverick is a gem. Faithful in spirit to the original, fun wordplay, charming actors.

I was thinking about it while watching Support Your Local Sheriff yesterday.

Query: with the disasters of wild wild west, heaven's gate, lone ranger, etc., why do studios keep giving big time money to westerns? To top everything that has been done before? The old westerns were made because the costumes, props, and desert were cheap and readily available.

Fano:Query: with the disasters of wild wild west, heaven's gate, lone ranger, etc., why do studios keep giving big time money to westerns? To top everything that has been done before? The old westerns were made because the costumes, props, and desert were cheap and readily available.

Then there's the interesting sidenote that the recent successful westerns like True Grit and Django Unchained were made on modest budgets.